Inside the black box: domestic homicide reviews as a source of data

IF 1.7 Q2 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
J. Rowlands, K. Bracewell
{"title":"Inside the black box: domestic homicide reviews as a source of data","authors":"J. Rowlands, K. Bracewell","doi":"10.1332/239868021x16439025360589","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Domestic Homicide Reviews (DHRs) are a statutory review process to better understand domestic homicide in England and Wales. As a policy intervention, DHRs are intended to build a picture of the circumstances before such deaths and identify gaps in practice, policy and system response. The rationale is that this learning can improve response to domestic violence and abuse and reduce the likelihood of future homicides. However, little is known about how the DHR process operates, including how knowledge is produced or its subsequent use, including any outcomes. In effect, for the most part, DHRs are a ‘black box’. Yet, researchers are increasingly using DHR reports as a source of data. By locating ourselves within these processes, this article explores the implications of limited engagement with DHRs as a process of knowledge generation to date. It focuses on the implications for researchers, in particular the epistemological and methodological issues that arise, before considering what this might mean for policy and practice. It identifies recommendations to address key gaps in the understanding and use of DHRs for research purposes.Key messagesRecognise the potential and challenges of using DHR reports as data.Consider the everyday work processes associated with the production of DHR reports.Concepts in DHRs must be clearly defined to enable robust data collection.Develop a feedback loop between research and practice so each can benefit from and inform the other.","PeriodicalId":42166,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Gender-Based Violence","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Gender-Based Violence","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1332/239868021x16439025360589","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Domestic Homicide Reviews (DHRs) are a statutory review process to better understand domestic homicide in England and Wales. As a policy intervention, DHRs are intended to build a picture of the circumstances before such deaths and identify gaps in practice, policy and system response. The rationale is that this learning can improve response to domestic violence and abuse and reduce the likelihood of future homicides. However, little is known about how the DHR process operates, including how knowledge is produced or its subsequent use, including any outcomes. In effect, for the most part, DHRs are a ‘black box’. Yet, researchers are increasingly using DHR reports as a source of data. By locating ourselves within these processes, this article explores the implications of limited engagement with DHRs as a process of knowledge generation to date. It focuses on the implications for researchers, in particular the epistemological and methodological issues that arise, before considering what this might mean for policy and practice. It identifies recommendations to address key gaps in the understanding and use of DHRs for research purposes.Key messagesRecognise the potential and challenges of using DHR reports as data.Consider the everyday work processes associated with the production of DHR reports.Concepts in DHRs must be clearly defined to enable robust data collection.Develop a feedback loop between research and practice so each can benefit from and inform the other.
黑匣子内部:国内凶杀案评论作为数据来源
家庭杀人案审查(DHRs)是一项法定审查程序,旨在更好地了解英格兰和威尔士的家庭杀人案。作为一项政策干预措施,人权报告旨在对此类死亡发生前的情况进行全面了解,并查明实践、政策和系统应对方面的差距。其基本原理是,这种学习可以改善对家庭暴力和虐待的反应,并减少未来杀人的可能性。然而,人们对DHR过程如何运作知之甚少,包括如何产生知识或知识的后续使用,包括任何结果。实际上,在很大程度上,dhr是一个“黑匣子”。然而,研究人员越来越多地使用DHR报告作为数据来源。通过将自己置于这些过程中,本文探讨了迄今为止与dhr有限接触作为知识生成过程的影响。它侧重于对研究人员的影响,特别是出现的认识论和方法论问题,然后考虑这对政策和实践可能意味着什么。它确定了一些建议,以解决在为研究目的理解和使用dhr方面的主要差距。关键信息认识到使用人权报告作为数据的潜力和挑战。考虑与DHR报告制作相关的日常工作流程。dhr中的概念必须明确定义,以实现可靠的数据收集。在研究和实践之间建立一个反馈循环,这样每个人都可以从中受益并告知对方。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
20.00%
发文量
49
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信